Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 889 posts

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#531

Post by cowmoo728 »

npsimons wrote: post #491
LatteLazy wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree broadly though I'd add two caveats: They can't do that AND profess to support free speech within their club. I think people should be able to form their groups as they like. But that doesn't mean that that group is a healthy place or that it doesn't harm wider society. I'm also not clear whether this is a group of people forming under their own initiative (as is their democratic right). Or if its actually som…

> Or if its actually some shady privately funded project by billionaires seeking to influence elections. Let's not jump to conclusions, otherwise we are as guilty of the credulity we are casting on them (Soros bucks, anyone?). Until there is hard evidence of this, please don't bandy it about.

"Rebekah Mercer is funding Parler, the social-media app touted by Republican politicians and pundits that conservatives are flocking to"

https://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-mercer-funds-parler-...

"[Robert] Mercer played a key role in the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by donating data analytics services to Nigel Farage. He is also a major funder of organizations supporting right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News, and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer

They're a husband and wife pair that fund hyper partisan causes, it's not exactly jumping to conclusions.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#532

Post by motohagiography »

calinet6 wrote: post #431
motohagiography wrote: post #422

This is how the internet is supposed to work. Encounters damage, routes around it. Censorship is damage, and people are routing around it. As someone who never engaged with FB/Twitter from the beginning because I thought they were terrible ideas (all the rules, risks, and challenges of elite-level competition with none of the benefits), I was very glad to read this because this kind of divergence is precisely what cr…

I see it as the opposite: this may be how a technical network is supposed to work, but it's not how a society is supposed to work. The internet has created the ability for any given subculture to discover instant validation and reinforce their beliefs into a tribe, which further solidifies and extremifies those beliefs. It's a psychological power almost equivalent to a nuclear reaction: beliefs and ideas that might h…

The argument that we need to stop tribalism to preserve society is both an un-self-conscious conservativism and a more pernicious appeal to cultural homogenization, which is what the dominance of the platforms caused, and which these innovations are a reaction to.

There is no diversity in 140 characters of closely monitored claptrap, and there is no risk and opportunity in trust and safety. There is no culture in a homogenized overton window, and there is no innovation in walled gardens.

The very idea that we need to suppress ideas for fear that the ignorant masses may be exposed to them is a fatuous, aspirational elitism that is the very reason the platforms have become stagnant.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#533

Post by giantg2 »

Brakenshire wrote: post #316
blackrock wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t the dissenting States just secede from the Union? It is a democracy after all.

It’s curious that the country/federation that introduced the concept of self-determination doesn’t allow self-determination for its constituent states.

It sort of does, in theory anyways. The constitution states that the government can be dissolved when the people feel it's necessary. That's not based on a single state though. But, the states should have a lot of power within their boarders, but it seems the 10th ammendment is often ignored and the judiciary fails to check the legislature on its overreach.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#534

Post by tomjen3 »

raffraffraff wrote: post #246
garmaine wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Block early, block often. Think twice before following someone.

Doesn't that just reinforce the echo chamber? I don't actually use Twitter or Facebook, and I deleted my Reddit, so I'm not the one to talk. But my wife uses Twitter a lot and has managed to get into conversations that are very hard to keep civil. She has found several approaches that work without blocking. 1. Only enable notifications and DMs from mutual follows. People who get into pile ons don't tend to follow the…

I don't think there is anything wrong with a limited viewpoint or an echo chamber but I haven't actually seen one operate (plenty of clutched pearls though).

I have a simple rule: I won't block or defollow based on your ideas, but I will do it very quickly if you are obnoxious, boring, trying to build an audience on twitter to sell products or build a brand or otherwise act stupid.

It is easier to follow my "don't say stupid things" if we already agree on most things, so I relax it a bit for those whom I disagree with to only include not denying reality and being non-stupid within their world view (e.g I am not going to follow someone who posts about 5G covid, but I have followed people who are against abortions.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#535

Post by pydry »

eternalban wrote: post #368
pydry wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems less of a turning point and more of a "squeeze the accelerator even harder" year. It was almost all a continuation of existing trends. I have a dreadful feeling that the turning point for all of this societal dysfunction will be following the aftermath of a world war.

I would not lose sleep over a world war. The social classes (globally) that are flooring the accelerator have no desire to glow in the dark. And we're not in lockdown globally so that the elite can spend time in bunkers deep underground. We're in lockdown so that elite privileges ("Grand Tour", etc.) can be restored, while the "common man" is put in his or her place, with strict regiments governing thought, speech, a…

It's funny, there's a scene at the beginning of the play "an inspector calls" (set just before WW1) that mirrors exactly what you just said. I think it was a historical callback to a real, commonly held opinion at the time ("the interests of capital" was how he phrased it).

I don't think our elites particularly want a world war either. I think they're perfectly prepared to push us in that direction in an attempt to cling on to their wealth and power though. They will prefer liberalism but they'll support far right populist who protects their property if that fails to garner popular support.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#536

Post by arkanciscan »

frasermince wrote: post #512

I think a lot of people in these comments are missing the core dilemma a lot of these tech companies are dealing with. How do you deal with rampant misinformation that might be harmful to society as a whole? I think moving to putting disclaimers on posts instead of deleting them might be the right move but it’s honestly just a hard problem.

Parler doesn't deal with this problem at all.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#537

Post by giantg2 »

0x445442 wrote: post #526
matwood wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we agree that there is a difference between an on screen nipple or saying fuck on TV and the POTUS actively undermining democracy? The general talk of free speech and censoring is not really useful here without specifics. Just like someone can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, there are other things we are finding that may be similar in nature. I think a more useful discussion could be around the specifics. Sho…

So you think Trump is the first POTUS to make objectively false statements and have those amplified over mass media?

Which one hasn't, might be a better question.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#538

Post by carapace »

rapht wrote: post #516

From the article: "Once you start fact-checking content, you introduce bias." As a European, I just stopped and wonder in what world America lives.

You can't really understand America unless you've seen "Gummo".

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119237/

(Please note: I am not recommending watching Gummo. Once you've seen it you can't un-see it. I'm just saying that you're picture of America is incomplete if you haven't encountered that side of the nation.)

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#539

Post by orblivion »

LatteLazy wrote: post #223

It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. They’re not offering freer speech, they’re offering a safe space. Maybe that’s a seller, maybe it’s not, but it’s an important distinction. This is really just /r/conservative taken to its logical conclusion.

This may be the best we can get. Different places banning different things. But they need to be honest so people know what they're getting into. Twitter is a progressive space.

I'm curious if Gab bans support of antifa. They couldn't claim it's about indirectly inciting violence, because they come close to the line when it comes to Nazi opinions. They do ban porn, which is fine with me. There's plenty of porn and it doesn't benefit from a network effect the same way. And I'm glad every place bans spam.

Re: Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

#540

Post by okareaman »

gpanders wrote: post #525
okareaman wrote: post #494

My Twitter is great. I follow AI, VR, Philosophy, Zen, Mindfulness, Twertzog, etc... all high quality. Same with Facebook. I'm very happy with my feed. I follow vintage photography, various art focused groups, philosophy groups, hacker and tech groups and I've unfollowed friends who post toxic shit. I enjoy looking at Twitter and Facebook in the morning. Twitter and Facebook AI's are constantly surprising me with coo…

They suck because this is not the default path or the path of least resistance. Without intentionality and vigilance, your Facebook/Twitter feed does inevitably turn into shit because that’s what their engagement algorithms push you toward. I think it’s great that you’ve tailored your content so well. But you’re the exception rather than the rule.

It does take constant tuning. Some twitter accounts get manic and tweet storm. I unfollow and save a bookmark to come back when they calm down. Some FB groups turn toxic or get a new dictatorial moderator. I'm constantly pruning and adding, but I enjoy the curation. I realize I'm the exception. My point is only that those sites can be really good with effort and awareness.
Post reply on HN